April 23, 2010

Citizens United Bill Next Week? Corporate Forces Attack

Legislation responding to the Supreme Court's controversial campaign finance decision - Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission - is expected to emerge next week, and corporate opponents already are on the attack.

Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) and Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) plan to introduce coordinated bills next week in response to the January ruling that lifted limits on corporate expenditures in elections, according to congressional sources.

An updated outline of the proposed Disclose Act obtained by The National Law Journal says the legislation will address six major areas. It will:

Require the head of a corporation, union, section 501(c)(4), (5), or (6) organization, or section 527 organization to say he or she “approves this message” in any campaign ad and the top contributor to “stand by” the ad.

Require any covered organization to disclose within 24 hours to the FEC not just its campaign-related activity, but also transfers of money to other groups that then can be used for campaign-related activity. Additionally, a covered organization must disclose its donors.

Prohibit corporations controlled by foreign entities or foreign nationals from spending in U.S. elections.

Mandate disclosure by corporations, unions, and other groups to their shareholders and members in their annual and periodic reports.

Prohibit federal government contractors with a contract worth more than $50,000 from spending money on elections.

Ban coordination between a candidate and outside groups on ads that reference a candidate and then run in the time period beginning 90 days before a primary and ending with the general election.

Van Hollen, who also serves as Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee chairman, announced on Monday that he had received Republican support for the legislation from Rep. Mike Castle of Delaware.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce today attacked the updated legislative outline, calling it “nothing more than a thinly-veiled attempt to hijack the political playing field to his advantage on the eve of mid-term elections.” The Chamber said it was “no secret” that Van Hollen’s campaign committee was facing “significant losses” in the House. “We will fight any and all attempts to muzzle and or demonize independent voices from the election discussion,” said Chamber President Thomas Donohue.

Van Hollen spokesman Doug Thornell told The National Law Journal, “It's not really surprising that powerful special interests based in Washington would be throwing temper tantrums over efforts to curb their influence and increase transparency so the American people know who is spending money on our elections.”

Comments

Politics are unfair because money talks and with Citizens United , it will shout. After all , an American voter should have more influence than a CEO of a British bank who sends money through its U.S. subsidiary to influence the election of a candidate.

This is excellent. Something has got to be done to level the playing field between big money and little money.

Will this address the phenomenon of "astroturfing" where big money is fronted by little "grass-roots" organizations that are ostensibly just very angry/noisy average citizens, but who are really being paid to carry placards, etc.? (As in the healthcare "debate".)

The fiction that corporations are "persons" is absolutely ridiculous. Corporations may be person-like in some characteristics but they are very much unlike "natural persons" in more important ways. Another fiction is the belief that money is somehow equated to free speech. Does anyone believe that a billionaire and a laborer have the same free speech rights or the same influence on our lawmakers? Money is political power and not free speech! Because of Citizens United, Corporations now have unlimited political power in our state and national elections.

A Constitutional amendment is the only sensible solution to reverse the rapacious corporate takeover of our nation’s electoral system, legislature, executive branch, and independent regulatory agencies. Such amendment should:

• Abolish the Electoral College system and provide for direct, popular presidential elections.

• Confer the right to vote in federal elections on all United States citizens.

• Limit contributions of cash or other value to or for the benefit of any candidate for federal office to United States citizens who are registered to vote in the State where such candidate is on or contending to be on the ballot.

• Require prompt public disclosure of the identity of each contributor, the amount and the identity each intermediate and ultimate beneficiary of every contribution of cash or other value to or for the benefit of any candidate for federal office.

• Declare that for purposes of the Constitution corporations are not persons, the expenditure of money is not speech, and no provision shall be construed to constrain federal and state regulation of corporate action directly or indirectly relating to legislative, executive branch, or independent regulatory agency activity.